Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Research Articles

Robot-Assisted Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Based on 3D Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Human Cadaveric Study. This study aims to explore the feasibility of using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), zero-time-echo (ZTE) and spoiled gradient echo (SPGR), as source data for robotic-assisted spine surgery and assess the accuracy of pedicle screws. Zero-time-echo and SPGR MRI scans were conducted on a human cadaver. These images were manually post-processed, producing a computed tomography (CT)-like contrast. The Mazor X robot was used for lumbar pedicle screw-place navigating of MRI. The cadaver underwent a postoperative CT scan to determine the actual position of the navigated screws. Ten lumbar pedicle screws were robotically navigated of MRI (4 ZTE; 6 SPGR). All MR-navigated screws were graded A on the Gertzbein-Robbins scale. Comparing preoperative robotic planning to postoperative CT scan trajectories: The screws showed a median deviation of overall 0.25mm (0.0; 1.3), in the axial plane 0.27mm (0.0; 1.3), and in the sagittal plane 0.24mm (0.0; 0.7). This study demonstrates the first successful registration of MRI sequences, ZTE and SPGR, in robotic spine surgery here used for intraoperative navigation of lumbar pedicle screws achieving sufficient accuracy, showcasing potential progress toward radiation-free spine surgery.

The articular surface technique for lumbar pedicle screw placement: a 3D feasibility study.

Traditional pedicle screws (TPSs) and cortical based trajectory pedicle screws each apply stability with fusions of the lumbar spine and have shown good success. However, the technical considerations of each technique imply complications of loosening and failure that either technique is uniquely prone to having. The current study proposes a new pedicle screw technique through the articular surface of the vertebral superior facet. It is hypothesized that this path will allow utilization of a larger screw that rivals that of the TPS technique, while also maintaining the high-density bone encountered in the cortical based trajectory technique. Retrospective review of 50 consecutive trauma patients that underwent lumbar computed tomography (CT) scans at a Level 1 Trauma Center in the age range 18-45. These scans were uploaded to Brainlab software for ideal starting point and trajectory mapping of pedicle screws coursing through each superior facet and pedicle of vertebral levels L1-S1 without cortical breach. Satisfactory pedicle screw variables consisted of a medial angle <10 degrees, screw length at least 30 mm, screw width at least 5.0 mm, and starting point measurements such as distance to the inferior articular surface and distance to the lateral articular surface. A total of 600 virtual pedicle screws were placed, in which 525 were satisfactory and measured with the above variables. The pedicle widths were shown to significantly widen with lower-level vertebra in the lumbar spine. Approximately 72% of unsuccessful pedicle screws were placed in levels L1 and L2 allowing wider pedicle screws to be placed more further down the vertebral column. The articular surface technique (AST) for pedicle screw placement is a viable alternative in lumbar spinal fusions that offers decreased soft tissue dissection. However, the technique is likely better suited for lower lumbar fusions in L3 to S1.

Floor-Mounted Robotic Pedicle Screw Placement in Lumbar Spine Surgery: An Analysis of 1,050 Screws.

To analyze the usage of floor-mounted robot in minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology using floor-mounted robot (ExcelsiusGPS) were included. Pedicle screw accuracy, proximal level violation rate, pedicle screw size, screw-related complications, and robot abandonment rate were analyzed. Two hundred twenty-nine patients were included. Most surgeries were primary single-level fusion. Sixty-five percent of surgeries had intraoperative computed tomography (CT) workflow, 35% had preoperative CT workflow. Sixty-six percent were transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 16% were lateral, 8% were anterior, and 10% were a combined approach. A total of 1,050 screws were placed with robotic assistance (85% in prone position, 15% in lateral position). Postoperative CT scan was available for 80 patients (419 screws). Overall pedicle screw accuracy rate was 96.4% (prone, 96.7%; lateral, 94.2%; primary, 96.7%; revision, 95.3%). Overall poor screw placement rate was 2.8% (prone, 2.7%; lateral, 3.8%; primary, 2.7%; revision, 3.5%). Overall proximal facet and endplate violation rates were 0.4% and 0.9%. Average diameter and length of pedicle screws were 7.1 mm and 47.7 mm. Screw revision had to be done for 1 screw (0.1%). Use of the robot had to be aborted in 2 cases (0.8%). Usage of floor-mounted robotics for the placement of lumbar pedicle screws leads to excellent accuracy, large screw size, and negligible screw-related complications. It does so for screw placement in prone/lateral position and primary/revision surgery alike with negligible robot abandonment rates.

Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Spinopelvic Fixation for Traumatic Sacral Fractures: Case Series Investigating Early Safety and Efficacy

High-energy traumatic sacral fractures, particularly U-type or AOSpine classification type C fractures, may lead to significant functional deficits. Traditionally, spinopelvic fixation for unstable sacral fractures was performed with open reduction and fixation, but robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgical methods now present new, less invasive approaches. The objective here was to present a series of patients with traumatic sacral fractures treated with robotic-assisted minimally invasive spinopelvic fixation and discuss early experience, considerations, and technical challenges. Between June 2022 and January 2023, 7 consecutive patients met the inclusion criteria. Intraoperative fluoroscopic images were merged with intraoperative computed tomography images using a robotic system to plan the trajectories for placement of bilateral lumbar pedicle and iliac screws. Intraoperative computed tomography was performed after pedicle and pelvic screw insertion to confirm appropriate placement before insertion of rods percutaneously without the need for a side connector. The cohort consisted of 7 patients (4 female, 3 male) with ages ranging from 20 to 74. Intraoperatively, the mean blood loss was 85.7 ± 84.0 mL, and mean operative time was 178.4 ± 63.9 minutes. There were no complications in 6 patients; 1 patient experienced both a medially breached pelvic screw and a complicated rod pullout. All patients were safely discharged to their homes or an acute rehabilitation facility. Our early experience reveals that robotic-assisted minimally invasive spinopelvic fixation for traumatic sacral fractures is a safe and feasible treatment option with the potential to improve outcomes and reduce complications.

Step-by-step guide to robotic-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).

Robotics in spinal surgery offers a promising potential to refine and improve the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) technique. Suitable surgeons for this technique include those who are already familiar with robotic-guided lumbar pedicle screw placement and want to advance their skillset by incorporating posterior-based interbody fusion. We provide a step-by-step guide for robotic-guided MI-TLIF. The procedure is divided into 7 practical and detailed techniques. The steps in sequential order include: (I) planning trajectories for pedicle screws and the tubular retractor; (II) robotic-guided pedicle screw placement; (III) placement of tubular retractor; (IV) unilateral facetectomy using the surgical microscope; (V) discectomy & disc preparation; (VI) interbody implant insertion; and (VII) percutaneous rod placement. We standardize surgeon training in robotic MI-TLIF by teaching our spine surgery fellows these 7 key technical steps highlighted in this guide. Current-generation robotics offers integrated navigation capability, K-wireless placement of pedicle screws through a rigid robotic arm, compatibility with tubular retractor systems to perform facetectomy, and allows for placement of interbody devices. We have found robotic-guided MI-TLIF to be a safe procedure that allows for accurate and reliable pedicle screw placement, less collateral damage to the soft tissues of the low back, and decreased radiation exposure.

Sagittal imaging study of the lumbar spine with the short rod technique.

The short rod technique (SRT) is a novel method for lumbar pedicle screw placement to reduce surgical trauma and avoid damage to the facet joint and articular surface. The core concept is to change the entry point and angle of the screw on the vertebrae at both ends in the sagittal plane to shorten the length of the longitudinal rods. The purpose of this study is to determine the sagittal screw angle (SSA) and its safe Maximum (MAX) value on each lumbar vertebra for the SRT and to observe the shortening effect on the longitudinal rods. A total of 152 healthy adults were investigated by measuring the lumbar spine lateral view images. The SSA and MAX-SSA were measured with SRT as reference to the conventional placement technique method. The distance between the entry points of the proximal and distal vertebrae was measured to compare the changes in the length of the longitudinal rods using the two screw placement techniques. + SSA increased from L1 to L4, and -SSA increased from L2 to L5, in which the -SSA of L2, L3, and L4 were significantly greater than those of + SSA (P < 0.05). + MAX-SSA at L1-L4 was 23.26 ± 3.54°, 23.68 ± 3.37°, 24.12 ± 3.29°, and 24.26 ± 3.42°, respectively. -MAX-SSA at L2-L5 was 36.25 ± 3.26°, 38.26 ± 3.73°, 38.62 ± 3.63° and 37.33 ± 3.31°, respectively. Theoretical reductions by calculation for the 2-segment lumbar pedicles were: L1-2: 9mm, L2-3: 9.29mm, L3-4: 6.23mm, and L4-5: 7.08mm; And the 3-segment lumbar pedicles were: L1-3: 16.97mm, L2-4: 16.73mm, L3-5, and 18.24mm, respectively. The application of the SRT to lumbar pedicles is a safe screw placement method that can significantly shorten the length of the used longitudinal rods.

Screw Insertion Time, Fluoroscopy Time, and Operation Time for Robotic-Assisted Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Compared With Freehand Technique.

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to clarify the superiority of robotic-assisted lumbar pedicle screw placement in terms of screw insertion time, fluoroscopy time, and operation time.MethodsThe subjects were 46 patients who underwent a posterior lumbar interbody fusion with an open procedure for lumbar degenerative disease from April 2021 to February 2022. The robot group contained 29 cases of screw insertion using a spine robotic system (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic Inc., Dublin, Ireland). The freehand group contained 17 cases of screw insertion with the freehand technique utilizing the conventional C-arm image guidance. The screw insertion time, fluoroscopy time, and operation time were compared between the robot and the freehand group.ResultsThe screw insertion time did not differ significantly between the two groups (robot group: 179.0 ± 65.2 sec; freehand group: 164.2 ± 83.4 sec; p = 0.507). The fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the robot group (robot group: 28.3 ± 25.8 sec; freehand group: 67.5 ± 72.8 sec; p = 0.011). The fluoroscopy time per segment was also significantly shorter in the robot group (robot group: 17.8 ± 23.0 sec; freehand group: 60.2 ± 74.8 sec; p = 0.007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robot group (robot group: 249.6 ± 72.5 min; freehand group: 195.8 ± 60.1 sec; p = 0.013), but the operation time per segment did not differ significantly between the two groups (robot group: 144.1 ± 39.0 min; freehand group: 159.7 ± 34.4 min; p = 0.477).ConclusionsThe screw insertion time and operation time per segment were similar when employing the spine robotic system compared to the freehand technique; however, the fluoroscopy time was shorter. The fluoroscopy time per segment in the robot group was 29.6% of the time of the freehand group using the C-arm. The surgeon's radiation exposure is thought to be decreased since the spine robotic system shortens the fluoroscopy time.

Accuracy of Stereovision-Updated Versus Preoperative CT-Based Image Guidance in Multilevel Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement: A Cadaveric Swine Study.

Background:Change in vertebral position between preoperative imaging and the surgical procedure reduces the accuracy of image-guided spinal surgery, requiring repeated imaging and surgical field registration, a process that takes time and exposes patients to additional radiation. We developed a handheld, camera-based, deformable registration system (intraoperative stereovision, iSV) to register the surgical field automatically and compensate for spinal motion during surgery without further radiation exposure.Methods:We measured motion-induced errors in image-guided lumbar pedicle screw placement in 6 whole-pig cadavers using state-of-the-art commercial spine navigation (StealthStation; Medtronic) and iSV registration that compensates for intraoperative vertebral motion. We induced spinal motion by using preoperative computed tomography (pCT) of the lumbar spine performed in the supine position with accentuated lordosis and performing surgery with the animal in the prone position. StealthStation registration of pCT occurred using metallic fiducial markers implanted in each vertebra, and iSV data were acquired to perform a deformable registration between pCT and the surgical field. Sixty-eight pedicle screws were placed in 6 whole-pig cadavers using iSV and StealthStation registrations in random order of vertebral level, relying only on image guidance without invoking the surgeon’s judgment. The position of each pedicle screw was assessed with post-procedure CT and confirmed via anatomical dissection. Registration errors were assessed on the basis of implanted fiducials.Results:The frequency and severity of pedicle screw perforation were lower for iSV registration compared with StealthStation (97% versus 68% with Grade 0 medial perforation for iSV and StealthStation, respectively). Severe perforation occurred only with StealthStation (18% versus 0% for iSV). The overall time required for iSV registration (computational efficiency) was ∼10 to 15 minutes and was comparable with StealthStation registration (∼10 min). The mean target registration error was smaller for iSV relative to StealthStation (2.81 ± 0.91 versus 8.37 ± 1.76 mm).Conclusions:Pedicle screw placement was more accurate with iSV registration compared with state-of-the-art commercial navigation based on preoperative CT when alignment of the spine changed during surgery.Clinical Relevance:The iSV system compensated for intervertebral motion, which obviated the need for repeated vertebral registration while providing efficient, accurate, radiation-free navigation during open spinal surgery.

CT-to-fluoroscopy registration versus scan-and-plan registration for robot-assisted insertion of lumbar pedicle screws.

Pedicle screw insertion for stabilization after lumbar fusion surgery is commonly performed by spine surgeons. With the advent of navigation technology, the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion has increased. Robotic guidance has revolutionized the placement of pedicle screws with 2 distinct radiographic registration methods, the scan-and-plan method and CT-to-fluoroscopy method. In this study, the authors aimed to compare the accuracy and safety of these methods. A retrospective chart review was conducted at 2 centers to obtain operative data for consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted lumbar pedicle screw placement. The newest robotic platform (Mazor X Robotic System) was used in all cases. One center used the scan-and-plan registration method, and the other used CT-to-fluoroscopy for registration. Screw accuracy was determined by applying the Gertzbein-Robbins scale. Fluoroscopic exposure times were collected from radiology reports. Overall, 268 patients underwent pedicle screw insertion, 126 patients with scan-and-plan registration and 142 with CT-to-fluoroscopy registration. In the scan-and-plan cohort, 450 screws were inserted across 266 spinal levels (mean 1.7 ± 1.1 screws/level), with 446 (99.1%) screws classified as Gertzbein-Robbins grade A (within the pedicle) and 4 (0.9%) as grade B (< 2-mm deviation). In the CT-to-fluoroscopy cohort, 574 screws were inserted across 280 lumbar spinal levels (mean 2.05 ± 1.7 screws/ level), with 563 (98.1%) grade A screws and 11 (1.9%) grade B (p = 0.17). The scan-and-plan cohort had nonsignificantly less fluoroscopic exposure per screw than the CT-to-fluoroscopy cohort (12 ± 13 seconds vs 11.1 ± 7 seconds, p = 0.3). Both scan-and-plan registration and CT-to-fluoroscopy registration methods were safe, accurate, and had similar fluoroscopy time exposure overall.

Confirmation of accuracy/inaccuracy of lumbar pedicle screw placement using postoperative computed tomography.

Background: Transpedicular screws are extensively utilized in lumbar spine surgery. The placement of these screws is typically guided by anatomical landmarks and intraoperative fluoroscopy. Here, we utilized 2-week postoperative computed tomography (CT) studies to confirm the accuracy/inaccuracy of lumbar pedicle screw placement in 145 patients and correlated these findings with clinical outcomes.Methods: Over 6 months, we prospectively evaluated the location of 612 pedicle screws placed in 145 patients undergoing instrumented lumbar fusions addressing diverse pathology with instability. Routine anteroposterior and lateral plain radiographs were obtained 48 h after the surgery, while CT scans were obtained at 2 postoperative weeks (i.e., ideally these should have been performed intraoperatively or within 24–48 h of surgery).Results: Of the 612 screws, minor misplacement of screws (≤2 mm) was seen in 104 patients, moderate misplacement in 34 patients (2–4 mm), and severe misplacement in 7 patients (>4 mm). Notably, all the latter 7 (4.8% of the 145) patients required repeated operative intervention.Conclusion: Transpedicular screw insertion in the lumbar spine carries the risks of pedicle medial/lateral violation that is best confirmed on CT rather than X-rays/fluoroscopy alone. Here, we additional found 7 patients (4.8%) who with severe medial/lateral pedicle breach who warranting repeated operative intervention. In the future, CT studies should be performed intraoperatively or within 24–48 h of surgery to confirm the location of pedicle screws and rule in our out medial or lateral pedicle breaches.

Application of a Novel Attachable Magnetic Nerve Stimulating Probe in Intraoperative Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement: A Porcine Model Study

Pedicle screw instrumentation is a fundamental technique in lumbar spine surgery. However, several complications could occur when placing a pedicle screw, the most serious being damage to the neural structures. We developed an attachable magnetic nerve stimulating probe used for triggered electromyography (t-EMG) to avoid these. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of this probe for intraoperative neuromonitoring (ION) during lumbar pedicle screw placement in a porcine model. Forty pedicle screws were inserted bilaterally into the pedicles of the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae of five pigs; 20 were inserted typically into the pedicle without nerve damage (Group A), and the other 20 were inserted through the broken medial wall of the pedicle to permit contact with the neural structures (Group B). We measured the triggered threshold for pedicle screw placement through the conventional nerve probe and our newly developed magnetic probe. There was no significant difference in the triggered threshold between the two instruments (p = 0.828). Our newly developed magnetic stimulating probe can be attached to a screwdriver, thus preventing real-time screw malpositioning and making it practical and equally safe. This probe could become indispensable in revision spine surgeries with severe adhesions or endoscopic spine surgeries.

Facet Violation With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement: Impact of 3D Navigation and Facet Orientation.

Background: The gold standard for percutaneous pedicle screw placement is 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy. Data are sparse on the accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) navigation percutaneous screw placement in minimally invasive spine procedures. Objective: We sought to compare a single surgeon's percutaneous pedicle screw placement accuracy using 2D fluoroscopy versus 3D navigation, as well as to investigate the effect of facet orientation on facet violation when using 2D fluoroscopy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective radiographic study of consecutive cohort of patients who underwent percutaneous lumbar instrumentation using either 2D fluoroscopy or 3D navigation. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon at 2 academic institutions between 2011 and 2018. Radiographic measurement of screw accuracy was assessed using a postoperative computed tomographic scan. The primary outcome was facet violation, and secondary outcomes were endplate/tip breaches, the Gertzbein-Robbins classification for cortical breaches, and the Simplified Screw Accuracy grade. Statistical comparisons were made between screws placed using 2D fluoroscopy versus 3D navigation. Axial facet angles were also measured to correlate with facet violation rates. Results: In the 138 patients included, 376 screws were placed with fluoroscopy and 193 with navigation. Superior (unfused) level facet violation was higher with 2D fluoroscopy than with 3D navigation (9% vs 0.5%), which comprises the main cause for poor screw placement. Axial facet angles exceeding 45° at L4 and 60° at L5 were correlated with facet violations. Conclusion: This retrospective study found that 3D navigation is associated with lower facet violation rates in percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placement when compared with 2D fluoroscopy. These findings suggest that 3D navigation may be of particular value when facet joints are coronally oriented.

Accuracy and Efficiency of Fusion Robotics™ Versus Mazor-X™ in Single-Level Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement.

IntroductionThere has been a surge in robot utilization in spine surgery over the past five years with the rapid development of new spine robotic platforms. This study aimed to compare a new robotic spine platform from Fusion RoboticsTM (Fusion Robotics, Helena, MT) with the widely used Mazor-XTM Stealth Edition robotic platform (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) in terms of workflow and lumbar pedicle screw placement accuracy.MethodsA cadaver lab was conducted, which included four procedures with single-level lumbar pedicle screw placement using the Fusion RoboticsTM system. These four procedures were compared to four propensity-score matched cases with single-level lumbar pedicle screw placement using the Mazor-XTM Stealth Edition. A single surgeon performed all surgeries. The cases were matched in terms of demographics (age, sex, race, BMI) and comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index score). The primary outcome measure was the operative workflow efficiency (duration as measured with a stopwatch by an independent observer). The secondary outcome measures were pedicle screw accuracy and accuracy to plan.ResultsAfter propensity-score matching, there were four cases in each group with no significant between-group differences in terms of sex, race, BMI, or surgical levels; however, there were significant differences in terms of age (p=0.01) and comorbidities (p<0.001). The workflow efficiency measurement showed that the Fusion RoboticsTM platform had a significantly shorter duration in terms of the system set-up time, planning to in-position time, and total procedure time (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the robotic platforms in terms of creating a sterile barrier, scanning and importing images, creating a plan, screw placement, screw accuracy, and screw accuracy to plan.ConclusionBased on our findings, the Fusion RoboticsTM platform had a significantly shorter procedure workflow duration while maintaining the same accuracy as the most commonly used robotic platform (Mazor-XTM). This is the first study to directly compare different spine surgery robotic systems.

Incidence of Cranial Adjacent Segment Disease after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Cortical Bone Trajectory Technique for the Treatment of Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis; More than a 2-Year Follow-Up

Introduction Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is a widely used effective, safe, and established treatment for degenerative spinal disorders. Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is one of the serious concerns governing the clinical results following spinal fusion surgery. Cortical bone trajectory (CBT) is an alternative and less-invasive technique for lumbar pedicle screw placement. Its unique medial and caudal entry point has the potential to prevent an iatrogenic facet joint violence leading to the ASD; however, the incidence of ASD following PLIF using the CBT technique (CBT-PLIF) remains unknown. Methods Among patients surgically treated with CBT-PLIF in our institute, 52 consecutive patients (13 males, 39 females) with single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) who were followed up for at least 24 months were exclusively enrolled. Their clinical and radiological features, including the incidence of radiographical and symptomatic ASD and significantly associated factor for the developing radiographical ASD, were retrospectively measured. Results In the present study, we could confirm significant neurological improvement and reduction of the spondylolisthesis with mean follow-up period of 43 months. Radiographical and symptomatic ASD was observed in 14 (27%) and 2 (3.8%) cases, respectively. We compared these two groups and found that the latest lumbar lordosis was significantly different between the two groups, but not in age, body mass index, and Japan Orthopaedic Association score. Two patients with symptomatic ASD required additional surgical treatment around 1 year following the initial surgery. Conclusions The present study, even though it is preliminary, revealed that CBT-PLIF can achieve a neurological improvement and an effective reduction of spondylolisthesis for the treatment of single-level DLS. The CBT technique is capable of reducing the incidence of ASD compared with the traditional technique; however, we must keep in mind that appropriate postoperative lumbar lordosis should be achieved. Larger, longer-term follow-up studies are required to elucidate the clinical output of CBT-PLIF.

Cranial facet joint injuries in percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placement: a matched-pair analysis comparing intraoperative 3D navigation and conventional fluoroscopy

PurposeThe violation of the cranial adjacent facet is a frequent complication in lumbar instrumentations and can induce local pain and adjacent segment disease. Minimally invasive screw implantation is often stated as risk factor in comparison with open approaches. Percutaneous pedicle screw placement (PPSP) can be performed using single X-ray images (fluoroscopy) or intraoperative 3D navigation. The study compares top-level screws in percutaneous lumbar instrumentations regarding facet violations and screw pedicle position using navigation or fluoroscopy.MethodsPatients after lumbar PPSP were retrospectively separated according to the intraoperative technique: navigation (NAV) or fluoroscopy (FLUORO). Two blinded investigators graded the top-level screws regarding facet violations and pedicle breach in postoperative CT scans. Subsequent matched cohort analysis was performed for comparable groups.ResultsEvaluating 768 screws, we assessed 70 (9.1%) facet violations. Overall, 186 (24.2%) screws were implanted using navigation. There was no significant difference in the rate of facet violations between both imaging groups (NAV 19/186, 10.2%, FLUORO 51/582, 8.8%, p = 0.55). Totally, 728 (94.8%) of all screws showed a correct pedicle position. Most of the 40 unfavorable pedicle positions were placed by fluoroscopy (NAV 4/186, 2.2%, FLUORO 36/582, 6.6%, p = 0.03). The matched cohorts verified these results (facet violations: NAV 19/186, 10.2%, FLUORO 18/186, 9.7%, p = 0.55; pedicle penetrations: NAV 4/186, 2.2%, FLUORO 12/186, 6.9%, p = 0.04).ConclusionsBoth intraoperative imaging techniques allow lumbar PPSP with low rates of cranial facet violations if the surgeon intends to preserve facet integrity. Navigation was superior concerning accurate pedicle screw position, but could not significantly prevent facet violations.

Pullout force of minimally invasive surgical and open pedicle screws-a biomechanical cadaveric study.

To assess whether lumbar pedicle screw placement with a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) vs. open technique imparts different biomechanical parameters and thus may affect failure rates. Human cadaveric disarticulated lumbar vertebrae 1-5 were stabilised in cement. Pedicle screws were inserted either via the 'MIS' or 'open' technique, based on previously described anatomical landmarks. Each vertebra had one 'MIS' and one 'open' technique screw. Specimens were tested with an Instron mechanical testing machine, positioned to allow for testing of direct coaxial force. Load was applied until failure occurred, and load-displacement curves generated for each screw. Average failure load was found to be 685±399 N for MIS, versus 661±323 N for open technique (P=0.75). The average ultimate failure load was 748±421 N for MIS, versus 772±326 N for open (P=0.74). Average displacement until failure was 0.95±0.49 mm for MIS as compared to 0.95±0.62 mm for open (P=0.996). Axial stiffness was 936±217 N/mm for MIS and 1,016±263 N/mm for open (P=0.19). Average work required to result in failure was 0.84±1.09 J for MIS and 0.82±1.05 J for open (P=0.94). There was no significant difference in the biomechanical properties of the MIS as compared with open lumbar pedicle screws, when tested until failure under direct coaxial force. The clinical implication may be that there is no significant advantage in the biomechanical properties of MIS versus open lumbar pedicle screw insertion techniques.

Percutaneous placement of lumbar pedicle screws via intraoperative CT image-based augmented reality-guided technology.

The authors aimed to assess, in a bone-agar experimental setting, the feasibility and accuracy of percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placements using an intraoperative CT image-based augmented reality (AR)-guided method compared to placements using a radiograph-guided method. They also compared two AR hologram alignment methods. Twelve lumbar spine sawbones were completely embedded in hardened opaque agar, and a cubic marker was fixed on each phantom. After intraoperative CT, a 3D model of each phantom was generated, and a specialized application was deployed into an AR headset (Microsoft HoloLens). One hundred twenty pedicle screws, simulated by Kirschner wires (K-wires), were placed by two experienced surgeons, who each placed a total of 60 screws: 20 placed with a radiograph-guided technique, 20 with an AR technique in which the hologram was manually aligned, and 20 with an AR technique in which the hologram was automatically aligned. For each K-wire, the insertion path was expanded to a 6.5-mm diameter to simulate a lumbar pedicle screw. CT imaging of each phantom was performed after all K-wire placements, and the operative time required for each K-wire placement was recorded. An independent radiologist rated all images of K-wire placements. Outcomes were classified as grade I (no pedicle perforation), grade II (screw perforation of the cortex by up to 2 mm), or grade III (screw perforation of the cortex by > 2 mm). In a clinical situation, placements scored as grade I or II would be acceptable and safe for patients. Among all screw placements, 75 (94%) of 80 AR-guided placements and 40 (100%) of 40 radiograph-guided placements were acceptable (i.e., grade I or II; p = 0.106). Radiograph-guided placements had more grade I outcomes than the AR-guided method (p < 0.0001). The accuracy of the two AR alignment methods (p = 0.526) was not statistically significantly different, and neither was it different between the AR and radiograph groups (p < 0.0001). AR-guided placements required less time than the radiograph-guided placements (mean ± standard deviation, 131.76 ± 24.57 vs 181.43 ± 15.82 seconds, p < 0.0001). Placements performed using the automatic-alignment method required less time than those using the manual-alignment method (124.20 ± 23.80 vs 139.33 ± 23.21 seconds, p = 0.0081). In bone-agar experimental settings, AR-guided percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placements were acceptable and more efficient than radiograph-guided placements. In a comparison of the two AR-guided placements, the automatic-alignment method was as accurate as the manual method but more efficient. Because of some limitations, the AR-guided system cannot be recommended in a clinical setting until there is significant improvement of this technology.

Initial Single-Institution Experience With a Novel Robotic-Navigation System for Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw and Pelvic Screw Placement With 643 Screws.

Robotic-guided navigation systems for pedicle screw placement has gained recent interest to ensure accuracy and safety and diminish radiation exposure. There have been no published studies using a new combined robotics and navigation system (Globus ExcelsiusGPS system). The purpose of this study was to demonstrate safety with this system. This is a case series of consecutive patients at a single institution from February 1, 2018, to August 31, 2018. All patients who had planned placement of thoracic and lumbar pedicle screws using the combined robotics-navigation system were included. Chart review was performed for operative details. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients with postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans to assess screw placement accuracy using the Gertzbein and Robbins system. Acceptable pedicle screw position was defined as grade A or B. One hundred six patients were included, with 636 pedicle screws, 6 iliac screws, and 1 S2AI screw. Five cases were aborted for technical issues. In the remaining 101 patients, 88 patients had screws placed using preoperative CT planning and 13 patients using intraoperative fluoroscopy planning. All screws except for 5 pedicle screws in 2 patients were placed successfully using the robot (99%). These 5 pedicle screws were placed by converting to a fluoro-guided technique without robotic assistance. Eighty-six patients had screws placed using a percutaneous technique, and 15 patients had screws placed using an open technique. Ninety-eight patients underwent interbody placement: 28 anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs), 12 lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs), and 58 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs). All ALIFs and LLIFs were performed prior to placement of the screws. Four LIF patients had screws placed in the lateral position. No patients had screw-related complications intraoperatively or postoperatively, and no patients returned to the operating room for screw revision. Thirteen patients underwent postoperative CT for various reasons. Of the 66 pedicle screws that were examined with postoperative CT, all screws (100%) had acceptable position. This study demonstrates that the combined robotics and navigation system is a novel technology that can be utilized to place pedicle screws and pelvic screws safely and has the potential to reduce screw-related complications. 4 (case series).

Navigated minimally invasive facet fusion during percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw insertion: Technical note

ObjectiveMinimally invasive surgery (MIS), or percutaneous, lumbar pedicle screw placement is commonly done, but the percutaneous nature of this makes posterior arthrodesis extremely difficult. Many times, surgeons will simply forego posterior arthrodesis, place posterior pedicle screws, and rely only on the interbody area for arthrodesis. We describe our technique of adding facet arthrodesis via the same corridor through which the pedicle screw is inserted with minimal addition of time or steps. MethodsWe demonstrate our technique of how we use navigation and tubular retractors to perform posterior facet arthrodesis during percutaneous pedicle screw placement. We illustrate this technique with a case of a patient with scoliosis, intraoperative photos, and an illustrative video. We also show an intraoperative computed tomography image to help visualize the arthrodesis surfaces. With this technique, we show how there are a few additional steps that are not very time consuming to add posterior arthrodesis. ResultsMIS facet fusion can be performed in a relatively straightforward manner during percutaneous pedicle fixation without significant addition of intraoperative time or steps. ConclusionsIt is possible to add posterior arthrodesis to percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw fusion with few added steps and minimal addition of time using navigation and MIS tubular retractors.

Next-Generation Robotic Spine Surgery: First Report on Feasibility, Safety, and Learning Curve.

Pedicle screw placement is a commonly performed procedure. Robot-guided screw placement is a recent technological advance that has shown accuracy and reliability with first-generation platforms. To report our initial experience with the safety, feasibility, and learning curve associated with pedicle screw placement utilizing next-generation robotic guidance. A retrospective chart review was conducted to obtain data for 20 patients who underwent lumbar pedicle screw placement under robotic guidance after undergoing interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stabilization for degenerative disc disease with or without spondylolisthesis. The newest generation Mazor X (Mazor Robotics Ltd, Caesarea, Israel) was used. Accuracy of screw placement was determined to be grade I to IV. Grade I was in the pedicle (no breach/deviation), grade II was breach < 2 mm, grade III was breach 2 to 4 mm, and grade IV was breach >4 mm; breach direction (superior, lateral, inferior, or medial) was also recorded. Twenty patients underwent robotically assisted pedicle screw placement of 75 screws at 24 levels. Seventy-four screw placements (98.7%) were grade I; 1 (1.3%) was grade II (medial). No complications occurred. Mean time for screw insertion was 3.6 min. Mean fluoroscopy time was 13.1 s and mean radiation dose was 29.9 mGy. We found that next-generation robotic spine surgery was safe and feasible with reliable and precise accuracy and a minimal learning curve. As this technology improves, further novel applications are expected to develop. Further research is needed to determine long-term efficacy.